Baroness Quin: My Lords, the Minister keeps saying that this proposal is all about getting staff out of ticket offices and on to platforms to help people. However, in my local station, Alnmouth, the staff already help people both in the ticket office and on the platform. This proposal therefore represents a deterioration in quality, not an improvement. I have a simple question for the Minister: in cases where a clear majority of the public is against ticket office closures at their station, will their views be listened to, with no question of their views being overridden?

Lord Balfe: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl and his committee on not only producing this report but, for once, getting it into the Chamber for debate before it has gathered too much dust. He has done remarkably well there.
The House knows my attitude to things European. I welcome what have been called “changing attitudes”, but I am a member of the Lord Speaker’s panel for schools and there has been no change of attitude there. School pupils were appalled by the referendum result. Every time I speak to a school, I say quite clearly, “I think it was a dreadful thing and we should reverse it as soon as possible. Does anyone disagree?” Occasionally you get the odd hand, but very seldom. Most of our younger generation, including the students at Cambridge University whom I meet from time to time, believe that we should repeal the whole process. That is why I welcome recent statements about looking again at how we can get a closer relationship.
It is fine to say that you can go around Australia for tuppence, or whatever, but most people want to go to Europe. Most people want the Erasmus programme back and students from the European Union to be able to come here. Most students want to come here. I want to see a Government looking to get as near as they can to the single market and back to the customs union and free movement. It seems incredible that we have such labour shortages but do not allow people to come into the country who would be prepared to work and benefit the economy.
I welcome the European Political Community and Britain’s participation in it. I see that we are hosting a summit next year; I hope we will put a lot of effort into it. I have also been interested to see recently that the French in particular are looking at a possible different structure. It has been common gossip in Brussels for years that the EU needs a different structure to enlarge. As someone said to me of the Baltic states, “You let one in and they’ll veto all the rest”. We have to work out a different structure; this two-tier structure is certainly worth looking at and working on, because I think it would work. It would probably also work for some of the current members of the EU that appear congenitally unable to keep its rules when it does not suit them. They do not seem to realise that the EU is an organisation where you have to compromise and, in the end, agree in order to go forward. That has been the EU’s secret—people can talk together. In this landmass, with fewer languages than India and a far smaller population than India or China, we have no option but to work together.
One hundred years ago this year, my grandmother moved into her first married house. She had gas mantles—not electricity—and no radio, and penicillin was a thing of the future. By the time she died, towards the end of the last century, all those things had changed. I say this because my granddaughter, now aged two, will probably be alive for the better part of another 100 years. This world will then be very different. Britain will be a small part of a small continent. It may well be China’s century—however much fantasy we have, I can tell noble Lords it will not be Russia’s—and we need to come to terms with that. The only way of doing so is to work with our European colleagues and to accept that you have to make compromises in working together —compromises that lead to the better good, a stronger Europe and a better place for us to leave our children to inherit.

Lord Jackson of Peterborough: My Lords, I welcome this report, which I think is reasonable, balanced and realistic. I also welcome the Government’s response. I speak as a veteran of the Brexit wars, having been chief of staff and special adviser to the Secretary of State in DExEU in 2017-18. One of our jobs was to meet heads of different Governments on a bilateral basis and explain Brexit from the UK perspective. It was also important for me to understand the European perspective, which for many was that the EU was a redemptive project to avoid the horrors of war.
On the issue of Horizon, which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has so ably enunciated over many months, I welcome the decision. But I have to say that  I was disappointed by the somewhat churlish tone of some noble Lords when the decision was made, given that the issue was weaponised by the European Union for many months, notwithstanding the fact that it was laid down in the TCA. The tone was: how dare perfidious Albion have the temerity to seek a better deal and better value on behalf of British taxpayers?
The future relationship with the European Union should of course be seen through the prism of British national interests. Our relationship with the EU matters: in 2022, 42% of total UK exports went to the EU and 48% of imports came from the EU. We also have to give consideration to the wider health of the European economy and the UK’s role as a global soft power nation, militarily, diplomatically and economically. Brexit catastrophism has been somewhat overplayed. Even economists have conceded that, notwithstanding that goods trade has remained becalmed, service exports since 2021 have risen 3.6%—significantly higher than most G7 countries.
On the subject of being churlish, it would be churlish not to admit that the Windsor Framework has changed the playing field in respect of our relationship. I neither supported nor voted against it. I believed that it was an unacceptable interference in the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation and that the continued jurisdiction of a foreign legal entity was wrong in principle—but we have to see our future relationship in an unsentimental, realistic and pragmatic way. I believe there will be great opportunities in the reboot of the TCA in 2025-26; we will have a new Commission and new bilateral relationships. But we also must remember the thoughts of Martin Selmayr, the former chief of staff to Jean-Claude Juncker, who said at the time of Brexit that the EU’s strategic objectives were twofold: to make Brexit as difficult and fractious as possible to encourage others not to leave, and to prevent the UK, as a third country, obtaining a competitive economic advantage. This is in the context of a situation where the EU’s share of world trade by dollar denomination—which, 30 years ago, was 30%—will probably be around 15% by the end of this decade.
I welcome the positive aspects of the report and the encouragement to work closely with the European Union on defence, security, intelligence, technology and energy. I agree that we should utilise the existing institutional framework structures for more regular meetings—I think there is a consensus across the House on that. We should have more comprehensive engagement at a bilateral level, such as, for instance, the successful engagement we have had with Portugal, our oldest ally.
In the context of Ukraine, I support involvement with the Permanent Structured Cooperation—PESCO —project, which my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford referred to, provided that there is adequate oversight and transparency and proper accountability to this Parliament, as my right honourable friend in the other place David Jones raised in the European Scrutiny Committee. Of course, there will still be problems, including with rules of origin, electric vehicles, the coupling of fishing and energy policies, carbon pricing and people mobility. The UK adequacy decision for the exchange of data is bound to be a temporary issue, and we will have to come back to the issue of GDPR.
The EU lacks the bandwidth to consider the relitigation and renegotiation of the TCA. Germany has its own problems, and the wider EU has problems with demographics, climate change, mass migration and geopolitical issues involving Russia, China and the tilt to the Pacific. In addition, associate membership is pie in the sky. As my noble friend said, variable geometry models are 20 years old—they will not work. We do not want less accountability and democracy at the centre of the EU, and to pay in but not have our voice heard.
Finally, the report outlines the path to a mutually beneficial, respectful and pragmatic relationship between the EU and the UK, and, in that spirit, it is timely and very welcome.